BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 61 (Pavley)
Hearing Date: 4/11/2011 Amended: As Introduced
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 61 would extend the sunset on provisions
governing wiretaps from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2015.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Prison commitments Unknown; potentially major
costs General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill would extend the sunset on existing wiretap laws.
State wiretap law was originally enacted in 1989 and granted law
enforcement officers the right to use wiretapping while
investigating specific types of crimes. Most recently, Chapter
707/2010 expanded the use of wiretapping to include the
interception of modern types of electronic communications.
The use of wiretap orders in California has stabilized over the
past several years, averaging slightly over 600 orders per year
since 2008. The Department of Justice indicates that of the 627
wiretap orders issued in 2010, 696 arrests were made, leading to
184 convictions. The crimes for which arrests were made vary,
but were largely narcotics-related.
Wiretaps are used as an investigative tool, one of many at law
enforcement's disposal. In the absence of this bill, the state
wiretap law would sunset, and any arrests and convictions
directly attributable to wiretaps (and any corollary commitments
to state prison) would cease, resulting in potential cost
avoidance to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in
incarceration costs.
It is unknown how many wiretap orders would be authorized under
SB 61 between January 1, 2012, and January 1, 2015, or how many
arrests, convictions, and prison commitments would result
directly from their use. In order to obtain intercept authority,
law enforcement must already be investigating specific criminal
activity, with wiretaps to be used after all other normal
SB 61 (Pavley)
Page 3
investigative procedures have been exhausted. It is unclear how
many investigations could have led to successful convictions
even in the absence of wiretaps. Moreover, wiretap evidence
makes it more difficult to prove a defendant's innocence and
could ultimately result in an indeterminable level of reduced
trial and incarceration costs to the extent that a defendant is
more likely to plea bargain due to the existence of wiretap
evidence of his or her guilt. Nonetheless, if even two
additional defendants are sentenced to state prison directly
attributable to a wiretap, the cost would exceed the threshold
for referral to the Suspense File.
Prior Legislation. SB 1428 (Pavley) 2010 proposed to extend the
sunset on wiretap provisions to January 1, 2014, however, this
provision was amended out of the chaptered version of the bill.